How Inflation Confiscates Wealth

[Paulie]

Root cause? Why are they able to influence the government? As to other areas where they and other big contributors might want influence: subsidies, trade & tariffs, taxes, labor law..., probably others.

I don't believe the root cause is corporate money in elections. I see that as the voters responsibility to kick the bastards out of office who are taking the bribes and being career politicians. Changing the way the money influences politics only encourages the bad guys to come up with different ways to get what they want.

The root cause is the bad politicians, because at the end of the day they are the ones who can either give the corps what they want, or NOT. So we as voters need to keep a close eye on our reps and kick them to the curb the moment we see them selling us out.

As far as those other areas you mention, those are small potatoes to big business as long as they can maintain their pseudo-monopolies in the marketplace, which at the end of the day exist BECAUSE of the stifling regulatory environment.

The root cause of bad politicians is money. Destroy one aspect of that and things have to improve. Just saying we have to elect better people ignores the fact that corruption is built into the system, regardless of who you vote for.

Why shouldn't shareholders of a company get to put money toward electing a politician that might benefit their bottom line? There's nothing inherently wrong with that on the surface.

Where the situation becomes wrong is in the politicians returning the favor. Let big business donate all the money they want. That doesn't mean the politicians have to give them anything in return. But they do so because they want to get reellected. And who reelects them? Not the corporations, but the idiot voters who continue to vote against their own self interests.

What you're advocating for is just another law to save us from ourselves.

 

[Avorysuds]

It's amazing to watch Austrian economics predict things so well yet get no credit while Republicans and Democrats use the same system that can't predict anything right yet they demand we accept their "theory of guess work" as fact.

Watch this crazy old man tell us how reality played out... Yet he gets called a racist loon.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM]Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Right, konradv. But it is the power that corrupts, the money is just a symptom of that. Which is why they need to have their arms chopped off economically speaking. They should have no sway over business as in, no ability to play favorites (no regulations/ no subsidies/ no agencies of control, like the FDA). The constitution was written that way for a reason. Their role is the law and upholding it and the people's rights. Take away their ability to play in the business arena, and the money will leave because it will have no desired effect.

 

[Paulie]

Root cause? Why are they able to influence the government? As to other areas where they and other big contributors might want influence: subsidies, trade & tariffs, taxes, labor law..., probably others.

Just take Ron Paul for example in this case. Big business doesn't even approach him anymore because he's near the very bottom of the list in corporate lobbying cash received. I think in 2010 he received a total of less than $400. To put it into perspective, in 2006 Santorum was at the TOP of the list.

Yet Paul constantly pushes for LESS regulation. So obviously big business doesn't see much benefit in less regulation, and that's why he and them have no political relationship...

... and why he's doing so well in the primaries.

Yeah, and that's where I mentioned in my next post there about idiot voters voting against their own self interests.

We're going to ONCE AGAIN choose someone who's going to give all the corporations everything they've contributed towards receiving in return.

So why not vote for someone who doesn't give them what they want, and therefore they don't even approach anymore? Like Ron Paul?

What you're asking for...politicians and big business not colluding together and screwing us with campaign influence...is present right here and now in Ron Paul.

But you don't like him do you? Figures

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's amazing to watch Austrian economics predict things so well yet get no credit while Republicans and Democrats use the same system that can't predict anything right yet they demand we accept their "theory of guess work" as fact.

Watch this crazy old man tell us how reality played out... Yet he gets called a racist loon.

Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original) - YouTube

it's easy to predict the booms and busts under the current central planning. That is the Austrian schools entire point. And they are 100% correct about it. The politicians and talking heads of today just do not want to lose the power they have accumulated over the course of time while Americans slept at the wheel. Which is why both sides, pundits of all ilk in the main stream HATE Ron Paul. He is a threat to the established power brokers.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Just take Ron Paul for example in this case. Big business doesn't even approach him anymore because he's near the very bottom of the list in corporate lobbying cash received. I think in 2010 he received a total of less than $400. To put it into perspective, in 2006 Santorum was at the TOP of the list.

Yet Paul constantly pushes for LESS regulation. So obviously big business doesn't see much benefit in less regulation, and that's why he and them have no political relationship...

... and why he's doing so well in the primaries.

Yeah, and that's where I mentioned in my next post there about idiot voters voting against their own self interests.

We're going to ONCE AGAIN choose someone who's going to give all the corporations everything they've contributed towards receiving in return.

So why not vote for someone who doesn't give them what they want, and therefore they don't even approach anymore? Like Ron Paul?

What you're asking for...politicians and big business not colluding together and screwing us with campaign influence...is present right here and now in Ron Paul.

But you don't like him do you? Figures

Of course not. Most don't on either side because they are still drinking that kool aid from their preferred political team. It's quickly becoming clear to people that the sides aren't much different. the only seperation is the way in which each side prefers to spend our money and rob our liberties. Both sides do it and it's been that way for decades.

 

[konradv]

I don't believe the root cause is corporate money in elections. I see that as the voters responsibility to kick the bastards out of office who are taking the bribes and being career politicians. Changing the way the money influences politics only encourages the bad guys to come up with different ways to get what they want.

The root cause is the bad politicians, because at the end of the day they are the ones who can either give the corps what they want, or NOT. So we as voters need to keep a close eye on our reps and kick them to the curb the moment we see them selling us out.

As far as those other areas you mention, those are small potatoes to big business as long as they can maintain their pseudo-monopolies in the marketplace, which at the end of the day exist BECAUSE of the stifling regulatory environment.

The root cause of bad politicians is money. Destroy one aspect of that and things have to improve. Just saying we have to elect better people ignores the fact that corruption is built into the system, regardless of who you vote for.

Why shouldn't shareholders of a company get to put money toward electing a politician that might benefit their bottom line? There's nothing inherently wrong with that on the surface.

Where the situation becomes wrong is in the politicians returning the favor. Let big business donate all the money they want. That doesn't mean the politicians have to give them anything in return. But they do so because they want to get reellected. And who reelects them? Not the corporations, but the idiot voters who continue to vote against their own self interests.

What you're advocating for is just another law to save us from ourselves.

Were you born yesterday? If money is involved, people will go with the money. YES, it is a law to save us from ourselves. SO?!?! I have no problem with a company, union or any other individual or organization spending all the money they want getting their message out. I object to their contributing to campaigns. That tips the balance too far. If we want politicians to listen to all the people, all the people are going to have to pay for it.

 

[Paulie]

... and why he's doing so well in the primaries.

Yeah, and that's where I mentioned in my next post there about idiot voters voting against their own self interests.

We're going to ONCE AGAIN choose someone who's going to give all the corporations everything they've contributed towards receiving in return.

So why not vote for someone who doesn't give them what they want, and therefore they don't even approach anymore? Like Ron Paul?

What you're asking for...politicians and big business not colluding together and screwing us with campaign influence...is present right here and now in Ron Paul.

But you don't like him do you? Figures

Of course not. Most don't on either side because they are still drinking that kool aid from their preferred political team. It's quickly becoming clear to people that the sides aren't much different. the only seperation is the way in which each side prefers to spend our money and rob our liberties. Both sides do it and it's been that way for decades.

Yeah I hear a lot of people say both sides are fucking us, both sides are the same, both sides are blah blah blah, and then a guy like Ron Paul comes along that just doesn't fit into that mold, and those same people find any little reason not to support him.

Do you want someone in the oval office that isn't going to fuck us for wall street or not???

 

[Paulie]

The root cause of bad politicians is money. Destroy one aspect of that and things have to improve. Just saying we have to elect better people ignores the fact that corruption is built into the system, regardless of who you vote for.

Why shouldn't shareholders of a company get to put money toward electing a politician that might benefit their bottom line? There's nothing inherently wrong with that on the surface.

Where the situation becomes wrong is in the politicians returning the favor. Let big business donate all the money they want. That doesn't mean the politicians have to give them anything in return. But they do so because they want to get reellected. And who reelects them? Not the corporations, but the idiot voters who continue to vote against their own self interests.

What you're advocating for is just another law to save us from ourselves.

Were you born yesterday? If money is involved, people will go with the money. YES, it is a law to save us from orselves. SO?!?! I have no problem with a company, union or any other individual or organization spending all the money they want getting their message out. I object to their contributing to campaigns. That tips the balance too far. If we want politicians to listen to all the people, all the people are going to have to pay for it.

Again, I point to Ron Paul.

If he's not a perfect example that there's still politicians who can't be bought, I don't know who is.

 

[Truthmatters]

Deregulation caused this mess and the last crash too

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm a Paul supporter. Have been since 2007 on the active level. For all his shortcomings, he's by far the best choice. In my world, the only choice. I'll be writing him in if that's what it comes to. Wasted vote or not. Neither of the current "front runners" either Obama or Romney, will change a thing in the capitol. Business as usual.

 

[konradv]

... and why he's doing so well in the primaries.

Yeah, and that's where I mentioned in my next post there about idiot voters voting against their own self interests.

We're going to ONCE AGAIN choose someone who's going to give all the corporations everything they've contributed towards receiving in return.

So why not vote for someone who doesn't give them what they want, and therefore they don't even approach anymore? Like Ron Paul?

What you're asking for...politicians and big business not colluding together and screwing us with campaign influence...is present right here and now in Ron Paul.

But you don't like him do you? Figures

Of course not. Most don't on either side because they are still drinking that kool aid from their preferred political team. It's quickly becoming clear to people that the sides aren't much different. the only seperation is the way in which each side prefers to spend our money and rob our liberties. Both sides do it and it's been that way for decades.

The way we finance elections perpetuates the system where we only have two sides.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Deregulation caused this mess and the last crash too

No, that is simply soundbiting and not accurate in the least.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Campaign finance reform isn't the cure. I've explained this now about 12 times in several threads. It's in this one too.

 

[konradv]

Why shouldn't shareholders of a company get to put money toward electing a politician that might benefit their bottom line? There's nothing inherently wrong with that on the surface.

Where the situation becomes wrong is in the politicians returning the favor. Let big business donate all the money they want. That doesn't mean the politicians have to give them anything in return. But they do so because they want to get reellected. And who reelects them? Not the corporations, but the idiot voters who continue to vote against their own self interests.

What you're advocating for is just another law to save us from ourselves.

Were you born yesterday? If money is involved, people will go with the money. YES, it is a law to save us from orselves. SO?!?! I have no problem with a company, union or any other individual or organization spending all the money they want getting their message out. I object to their contributing to campaigns. That tips the balance too far. If we want politicians to listen to all the people, all the people are going to have to pay for it.

Again, I point to Ron Paul.

If he's not a perfect example that there's still politicians who can't be bought, I don't know who is.

Paul is a person. Get him elected, then in 8 years, what? That doesn't change the root cause. You can't count on a Ron Paul every 8 years. Unlike RP, most of us are human and frail. Best to remove temptation.

 

[Paulie]

Were you born yesterday? If money is involved, people will go with the money. YES, it is a law to save us from orselves. SO?!?! I have no problem with a company, union or any other individual or organization spending all the money they want getting their message out. I object to their contributing to campaigns. That tips the balance too far. If we want politicians to listen to all the people, all the people are going to have to pay for it.

Again, I point to Ron Paul.

If he's not a perfect example that there's still politicians who can't be bought, I don't know who is.

Paul is a person. Get him elected, then in 8 years, what? That doesn't change the root cause. You can't count on a Ron Paul every 8 years. Unlike RP, most of us are human and frail. Best to remove temptation.

No, what Paul is, is proof that there are still people who can be trusted to be honest in office and serve the individual rather than corporate America.

He gives me every reason to assume there can still be an honest government, but the problem is we only elect the crooks.

The reason why that is, is because from the local level all the way to the top there's an establishment that is deeply embedded in the system that does everything it can to keep the honest people out of office. And then the media keeps the cap on things by providing us with an illusion of only certain choices, and people eat it up every single election.

Nothing is going to change until the voters themselves wake the fuck up.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Deregulation caused this mess and the last crash too

Wrong, again.

 

[KevinWestern]

Campaign finance reform isn't the cure. I've explained this now about 12 times in several threads. It's in this one too.

May not be the final cure, but you can't deny it will help to heal our system.

Politicians spend 30% of their time fundraising to get elected. If they know that Company A always donates an easy $50,000 to their campaign every 2 years, when it comes time to legislate chances are they're going to try their hardest not to tick off that company by voting for regulation that will take away at that company's profits, ect. They become dependent on that campaign finance money because they know that if they don't get it, they'll be voted out next term.

However, if a politician no longer receives funding from Company A, and only from the public - let's say in a taxpayer funded campaign system - they will no longer be as concerned about pissing off Company A and will legislate laws that benefit the constituents vs Company A because the politician will no longer be dependent on that $50,000.

We need to make politicians dependent upon the constituency vs. the financiers.

I think dependence corruption is one of our system's biggest weaknesses.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes i can deny it. Because it will not change the situation, only the doorways in which the situation walks through.

Taxpayer funded campaign run by a govt. agency. Can you spell waste and fraud. This is the entire point. Less govt. within their proper role, not more of it spread in areas you think are best.

 

[Paulie]

Campaign finance reform isn't the cure. I've explained this now about 12 times in several threads. It's in this one too.

May not be the final cure, but you can't deny it will help to heal our system.

Politicians spend 30% of their time fundraising to get elected. If they know that Company A always donates an easy $50,000 to their campaign every 2 years, when it comes time to legislate chances are they're going to try their hardest not to tick off that company by voting for regulation that will take away at that company's profits, ect. They become dependent on that campaign finance money because they know that if they don't get it, they'll be voted out next term.

However, if a politician no longer receives funding from Company A, and only from the public - let's say in a taxpayer funded campaign system - they will no longer be as concerned about pissing off Company A through legislating laws because the politician will no longer be dependent on that $50,000 to get reelected every 2 years.

I think dependence corruption is one of our system's biggest weaknesses.

You're assuming that money isn't smart, and isn't going to find its way into the tightest cracks. It's like water. You can't stop it from finding its way in.

Company A will find another way to get what it wants.

The only real solution is taking away the politicians who give them what they want.